Why I am not an atheist

I don't believe any
gods exist, but I'm not an atheist any more than I am an asantaclausist or an aeasterbunnyist. Not believing in Santa
Claus or the Easter Bunny doesn't commit me to an ideology or
belief system shared with others who reject the notion that such
creatures exist. My disbelief in leprechauns doesn't unite me
with millions of other aleprechaunists. The label of 'atheist'
is one that theists use to create the illusion that their belief
in spirits has some substance. I don't mind that theists devote
themselves to illusions and delusions as long as they don't do
me any harm. But they fill their concept of the atheist with a
number of lies and falsehoods that attempt to denigrate those of
us who don't share their belief in the existence of spirits.
Theists are particularly prone to parading forth
non sequiturs in their attempt
to vilify those of us who don't believe that an invisible spirit
created us or the world we live in.

The fact that I don't
believe in an invisible being who is all-powerful and created
everything in the universe for a reason does not mean that I
think we are nothing but slime and might as well just kill
ourselves. The fact that I don't believe in angels who watch
over us and grant us wishes from time to time doesn't mean that
I think life is meaningless and we might as well just kill
our neighbors. From the fact that I don't believe in miracles it
does not follow that I believe we are just dirt. It means I
don't believe that things happen because of intervention by
spirits. From the fact that I don't believe divine commands are
necessary for moral values, it does not follow that I don't
believe in right and wrong.

Theists use the term
'atheist' to designate those they claim don't believe in right or
wrong, think existence is meaningless, and who corrupt society
by not adhering to the codes of some religion like Christianity,
Judaism, or Islam. But from the fact that there aren't any gods
it does not follow that there is no right or wrong, that a
meaningful life is impossible, or that society will disintegrate
into a war of selfish egoists against selfish egoists. Why would
theists want to believe such obvious nonsense? For one thing, it
deceives them into thinking they are relieved from
self-examination. Faith in their religious beliefs is all they
need. The more vile they make the atheist look, the more
beatific they make themselves look, or so they seem to think.
One thing they might discover upon self-examination is that from
the fact that one believes certain commands came from God it
doesn't follow that they do. The theist thinks he has an
advantage over those of us who don't believe in any gods, but
his books and beliefs are just props that he uses to justify his
take on what is right or wrong. The theist has no more insight
than anyone else into what the right thing to do is in any given
situation. The fact that theists disagree about morals should be
their first clue.

The theist would
trick himself into believing that his life is meaningful because
he is following some rules and thinks he'll be rewarded with
eternal life. He believes that he was created to follow a set of
rules laid down by his creator, and that if he follows the
rules, he'll get to spend an eternity worshipping this rule
maker. A meaningful life, however, is one that is productive,
useful, creative, and enjoyable. A life spent obeying rules may
be none of those things. Theists claim that atheists think
everything is an accident and a human being is a collection of
material particles that will disintegrate at death. It
apparently doesn't occur to the theist that that's true whether
there is a god or not. Of course, they like to throw in the word
'just' to make the distortion complete. According to the theist,
the atheist thinks we're just an accident and just
a collection of particles.

The atheist is a
straw man created by theists. Every day there are hundreds
of pious theists who write articles and books against atheism,
as if atheism were a belief system. They attack one chimera after
another and pat themselves on the back for slaying these evil
dragons they call atheists. In the meantime, they don't examine
their own lives or beliefs. I'm not suggesting, however, that
theists would do a better job of self-examination than they have
tearing apart the straw man they've created. The books and
articles promoting the positive side of theism are usually
little more than pabulum and feel-good pieces on the level of
Chicken Soup for the Soul or The Purpose Driven Life.

I'm not an atheist
because the atheist is a figment of the theist's imagination, a
figment that is used to divert attention away from the dangerous
delusions theists harbor. The most dangerous theistic delusion,
of course, is that faith is superior to reason and that reason
should be used to distort the truth whenever needed in order to
defend doctrines of faith. The promotion of irrationality is one
of the most harmful effects of theism. Some theists even condemn
atheists for promoting rationality and science, and they do this
with a straight face. They mean it. They accuse us of
preferring reason to faith, as if that were a bad thing.

If by atheist one
means someone who believes that rationality and science are
better than irrationality and faith when it comes to improving
life and understanding the world, then count me in.
Unfortunately, the theists rule the world and they control the
language. Maybe that won't always be true. We can always hope
for
the end of faith.

I admire the work of
Mynga Futrell and Paul Geisert to
insert the noun
bright into our vocabulary, despite the overwhelming power
that theists have over the use of words to describe those that
disagree with them. Even Dan Dennett's suggestion that theists
be called supers fell
stillborn from the press. On the other hand, about the only thing that those
of us who don't believe in the existence of any gods have in
common is the belief that naturalistic explanations for
phenomena are the only ones that are essential. Any reference to
mystical forces or supernatural powers to explain anything is
superfluous. Those are the only necessary and sufficient
conditions for being a bright. The hope of the brights "to gain social and political power in a
society infused with supernaturalism" remains a noble goal
even if it is unlikely to sway the televangelists in their
megachurches or supremes like
Antonin Scalia. The
more success the brights movement has, however, the more a rational view
of the world is being promoted. That can't be a bad thing.
Wouldn't you rather be called a bright than an atheist,
especially when you know that those who call you an atheist do
so knowing they can attach all kinds of negative baggage to the
term no matter how untrue?

Unfortunately, many
non-theists have expressed their dislike of the term 'bright'
because it implies that theists are dim.

So?

__________

reader comments

Dear Professor
Carroll,
Allow me to thank you for your essay "Why I am not an atheist."
Your essay puts into words what I have been trying to tell my
theist friends and relatives for years. I am retired military
(20 years U.S. Navy) and my usual reply was that "I devoted 20
years of my life so you could worship the oak tree in your
backyard if you so wish. I also devoted those same years to the
right to disbelieve if you so wish." Fortunately, I have an
agreement nowadays with friends and relatives and, while all may
not be what I would like them to be (i.e. those asinine Jesus
save me emails), this essay gives me something to use in
response to their superstitions along with the
What's
the harm section of your website. Again thanks so much.
Sincerely
D.S. Fischer

__________

In regard to your
fine recent article "Why I am not an Atheist": I agree
completely on your observations as to how religionists use that
title to denigrate those who do not share their beliefs. I might
add that it has been my experience that many "true believers"
operate under the assumption that if an individual (theist or
not) does not accept the "truth" according to their particular
understanding, then by default that person is a worshipper of
Satan, or whatever embodiment of evil the faithful prefer. Am I
correct in classifying this as a non sequitur? I have many
family members and acquaintances who do not agree with my
(former, rapidly fading) beliefs, and I would never allow myself
to think they were somehow in league with the devil.

name withheld by
request

reply: Yes, I
think it is safe to say it is a non sequitur to claim that
because someone disagrees with you they must be in league with
Satan.

__________

Your defense of
atheism / non-theism (however you want to call it!) is spot on,
and I particularly liked your recent post, “Why I am not an
atheist.” It sums up, for me, the entire marketing strategy of
the Religious Right, and the same tactics infect most of the
modern media as well, on just about every issue. I find it truly
depressing how poor we’ve become as a nation, and that so many
people don’t care about accuracy in their information, as long
as it supports their agenda. Which, sadly, is often little more
than to have their guy ‘win,’ even as his agenda amounts to
little more than the same! That, and to make some cash while
he’s there!